What about the 4 passages where the Kjv rendered the Holy Spiorit as an "It?"
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Supposed Errors in the KJV
- Thread starter Hark
- Start date
- Status
Hark
Well-Known Member
Not in the context of the message, it does not say Christian churches, You are the one inputting that one.
Even though the people back then understood Easter in the N.T, in Tyndale's Bible was referring to the Passover in English in the O.T. just as Easter in the N.T. in Martin Luther's Bible was referring to the Passover in German in the O.T.
Just because as time went on, they were phasing out the use of Easter from the N.T., it does not change the fact that Easter is the same as Passover in the O.T. originally.
Funny how man made rules for commas did not exists in scripture. You see 2 Entities whereas I see one in the context of the message because the Father is not appearing, but our God & Savior Jesus Christ is at His coming.
The only truth here is that you are protesting way too much.
Hark
Well-Known Member
Cite the 4 passages from scripture, & God be willing, I may be able to answer them.. It helps with the progress of our discussion.
Here we have the claim that the Greek word translated "churches" is used for non-Christian churches in the NT. But, no citation was provided.
Pay no attention to the posters of obvious falsehood.
Act 14:23
When they had appointed elders for them in every church, having prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
Variation can be found in the KJV-only view’s line of good Bibles at Leviticus 11:16. The 1395 Wycliffe’s Bible has “lare,” which means “a seagull” according to the Oxford English Dictionary (VIII, p. 656). This would be close to the rendering of the 1560 Geneva Bible: “seameaw.” On the other hand, the other earlier pre-1611 English Bibles including the KJV have “cuckow” [their spelling varies with the 1611‘s “cuckow” being an old spelling for “cuckoo” in some present-day KJV editions]. Which is the better or more accurate rendering on this good line?
Several sources maintain that the Hebrew word in this verse referred to the type-birds indicated by the rendering in Wycliffe’s or the Geneva Bible instead of the rendering in the KJV. At its entry cuckoo, Smith’s Bible Dictionary noted: “There does not appear to be any authority for this translation of the A. V.” (p. 179). The Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible maintained that “there is no obvious reason why the cuckoo would be considered an unclean bird (Lev. 11:16, Deut. 14:15)“ (p. 53). In their commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown suggested at the cuckoo: “Evidently some other bird is meant by the original term, from its being ranged among rapacious birds” (I, p. 80). Cansdale asserted: “Cuckoos cannot be identified in the scriptures, the word shachaph of Leviticus 11:16 being more probably translated ’sea-gull’” (All the Animals, p. 188). Samuel Clark wrote: “There seems to be nothing to favour the claims of the cuckoo. The Greek name denotes a gull, and it is likely that some sea-bird is meant” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 549). Green’s Concise Lexicon defined the Hebrew word as “sea-gull, a ceremonially unclean bird” (p. 230). Young’s Analytical Concordance has the following definition: “sea maw, sea gull” (p. 214). Gensenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon noted that “according to LXX and Vulgate larus, gull, an aquatic bird so-called from its leanness” (p. 815). Aryeh Kaplan translated it “gull” [shachaf in Hebrew, laros in Greek (Septuagint); moison in Old French (Chizzkuni, equivalent to the modern French mouette)“ (Living Torah, p. 319). Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622?) translated it “sea-gull” in his Annotations on the Pentateuch. Ellicott’s Commentary maintained that the Hebrew word “literally means the thin, slender, or cadaverous bird, and is taken by the ancient authorities to denote the sea-gull, which is ‘the raven of the sea’” (I, p. 379). Unger’s Bible Dictionary suggested that the Hebrew word “is probably generic for [any] bird of the sea gull family” (p. 57). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary observed that “the prevailing opinion is, that it was what we call, the sea-mew or gull” (p. 188). The 1905 Magil’s Linear School Bible and the 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text by Jews have the same rendering as the Geneva.
On its chart of unclean animals, the New Pilgrim Bible with two KJV-only advocates as consulting editors has “sea gulls” in parentheses after “cuckow” (p. 170). H. L. Willmington has “seagull” in parenthesis after “cuckow” in his list of animals (Complete Book, p. 24). Waite’s Defined KJB has this note for this rendering: “Hebrew meaning unknown, possibly an extinct bird; perhaps a sea gull” (p. 160). In his tract “King James Bible Dictionary,“ O. Ray Smith defined “cuckow” as “gull.“ A Bible Word List printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society and “A Bible Word List” in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV both explained “cuckoo” as “gull.” The Companion Bible [KJV] has this marginal note: “cuckow, probably=sea-gull” (p. 147). The King James Easy-Reading Bible gave “gull” as its explanatory word for cuckow at Deuteronomy 14:15 (p. 306). Cansdale observed: “Gulls are mixed feeders, taking fish when they can but scavenging for much of the time” (All the Animals, p. 177). Cansdale maintained that gulls “would certainly rank as unclean” (Ibid.).
Several sources maintain that the Hebrew word in this verse referred to the type-birds indicated by the rendering in Wycliffe’s or the Geneva Bible instead of the rendering in the KJV. At its entry cuckoo, Smith’s Bible Dictionary noted: “There does not appear to be any authority for this translation of the A. V.” (p. 179). The Illustrated Dictionary of the Bible maintained that “there is no obvious reason why the cuckoo would be considered an unclean bird (Lev. 11:16, Deut. 14:15)“ (p. 53). In their commentary, Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown suggested at the cuckoo: “Evidently some other bird is meant by the original term, from its being ranged among rapacious birds” (I, p. 80). Cansdale asserted: “Cuckoos cannot be identified in the scriptures, the word shachaph of Leviticus 11:16 being more probably translated ’sea-gull’” (All the Animals, p. 188). Samuel Clark wrote: “There seems to be nothing to favour the claims of the cuckoo. The Greek name denotes a gull, and it is likely that some sea-bird is meant” (Cook, Bible Commentary, I, p. 549). Green’s Concise Lexicon defined the Hebrew word as “sea-gull, a ceremonially unclean bird” (p. 230). Young’s Analytical Concordance has the following definition: “sea maw, sea gull” (p. 214). Gensenius’ Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon noted that “according to LXX and Vulgate larus, gull, an aquatic bird so-called from its leanness” (p. 815). Aryeh Kaplan translated it “gull” [shachaf in Hebrew, laros in Greek (Septuagint); moison in Old French (Chizzkuni, equivalent to the modern French mouette)“ (Living Torah, p. 319). Henry Ainsworth (1571-1622?) translated it “sea-gull” in his Annotations on the Pentateuch. Ellicott’s Commentary maintained that the Hebrew word “literally means the thin, slender, or cadaverous bird, and is taken by the ancient authorities to denote the sea-gull, which is ‘the raven of the sea’” (I, p. 379). Unger’s Bible Dictionary suggested that the Hebrew word “is probably generic for [any] bird of the sea gull family” (p. 57). The 1855 Union Bible Dictionary observed that “the prevailing opinion is, that it was what we call, the sea-mew or gull” (p. 188). The 1905 Magil’s Linear School Bible and the 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text by Jews have the same rendering as the Geneva.
On its chart of unclean animals, the New Pilgrim Bible with two KJV-only advocates as consulting editors has “sea gulls” in parentheses after “cuckow” (p. 170). H. L. Willmington has “seagull” in parenthesis after “cuckow” in his list of animals (Complete Book, p. 24). Waite’s Defined KJB has this note for this rendering: “Hebrew meaning unknown, possibly an extinct bird; perhaps a sea gull” (p. 160). In his tract “King James Bible Dictionary,“ O. Ray Smith defined “cuckow” as “gull.“ A Bible Word List printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society and “A Bible Word List” in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV both explained “cuckoo” as “gull.” The Companion Bible [KJV] has this marginal note: “cuckow, probably=sea-gull” (p. 147). The King James Easy-Reading Bible gave “gull” as its explanatory word for cuckow at Deuteronomy 14:15 (p. 306). Cansdale observed: “Gulls are mixed feeders, taking fish when they can but scavenging for much of the time” (All the Animals, p. 177). Cansdale maintained that gulls “would certainly rank as unclean” (Ibid.).
Hark
Well-Known Member
How about how it is used in the verse?
Acts 19:35 And when the townclerk had appeased the people, he said, Ye men of Ephesus, what man is there that knoweth not how that the city of the Ephesians is a worshipper of the great goddess Diana, and of the image which fell down from Jupiter? 36 Seeing then that these things cannot be spoken against, ye ought to be quiet, and to do nothing rashly. 37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.
Anyone reading this ought to know they are addressing idolaters. You are the one limiting churches to only mean Christian churches when Strong's concordance has that one Greek word for "robbers of churches" interchangeable in referring to robbers of temples as robbers of places of worship.
Then you are pretty much saying Strong's concordance is falsehood. Anyone can look it up.
Everyone that reads this can see that is addressing saved believers;
Read Acts 14:23 in context
Acts 14:21 And when they had preached the gospel to that city, and had taught many, they returned again to Lystra, and to Iconium, and Antioch, 22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God. 23 And when they had ordained them elders in every church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed.
Is not the same as the message in Acts 19:37 when this can be read as addressing sinners & not Christians.
Every knows that are no commas in the original Greek, so when scripture is translated into Greek, as in Titus 2:13, the addition of the comma is a flaw according to Mr. Hark. But at Galatians 5:22, But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, then the addition of commas is just dandy.
No matter how many errors in the translation are presented, Mr. Hark will deny them all. His posts are false.
Church and churches are used as translations of an assembly of the "called-out" Christians.
No matter how many errors in the translation are presented, Mr. Hark will deny them all. His posts are false.
Church and churches are used as translations of an assembly of the "called-out" Christians.
How about Romans 8:26?
Hark
Well-Known Member
You are the one using the man made laws of commas as changing the message in the verse but I am telling you that in the case you are mentioning regarding separating God from our Saviour Jesus Christ by a comma as if inferring the Father & then the Son, you ignore the context of that verse as to Who is our hope in Who we are looking to that is appearing.
Titus 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 14 Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. KJV
In the context of that verse alone should be enough to say God & Saviour Jesus Christ as the hope we are looking for to appear since it is not God the Father that is appearing with Him as if They Both will be appearing & be seen.
And if any doubt remains.. the following verse when read in context should remove all doubts that it is the Son that is appearing to Whom the great God and our Saviour is addressing in verse 13.
The Kjv clearly though was stating that there is God and Jesus the savior, 2 separate Persons!
Hark
Well-Known Member
You said 4 passages that renders the Holy Spirit as an "it". In Romans 8:26, the word is "itself" not "it". It was used in Romans 8:16 earlier in that chapter.
Ask yourself why the KJV has it as "itself" when "he" and "him" has been used in regards to the Holy Spirit in the N.T. ?
John 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. .....26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.KJV
So let us read those 2 verses in Romans.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
That can be understood as the Holy Spirit is not speaking from Himself but serving as a means to speak what He hears from Another.
Same as the next verse for how itself was used; not that the Holy Spirit is speaking His intercessions but making silent ones by which Another has to know the mind of the Spirit to give the Spirit's Intercessions to the Father for the Spirit.
Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
So the mind of the Holy Spirit making intercessions for us serves as a means by which the Holy Spirit is not giving His intercessions that is made by His mind to God the Father, but by Jesus Christ knowing the mind of the Spirit..
The reason why is because it is in according to the will of God that Jesus Christ is the only One that gives intercessions directly to the Father because it is by the Lamb of God; is how our prayers comes to God the Father by that throne of grace.
AND so whenever the Father says yes to any of those intercessions; be it the silent ones from the Holy Spirit that the Son had given to the Father or our own prayer requests that the Son has given to the Father, or even the Son's own request per Hebrews 7:25 as given to the Father, it is the Son that answers the prayers so that the father may be glorified in the Son for answers to prayers.
John 14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
Brother, if you disagree with this, you need to address the scripture given if you believe He is meaning something else, because I have explained this to you over and over again in other threads, so if you want to progress in this discussion between us, then stop acting like I have never shared this with you before. Either address the scripture given or you are not helping me at all when you keep on ignoring this. If you do not know, then just say that but you need to take time out with the Lord to ask Him what He meant because I cannot teach you that.
Hark
Well-Known Member
When you stand before the Lord Jesus Christ, will He address you as a vain person trying to post small posts to be one of the top posters in this forum & not feeding His lambs with the scripture ?
For you to say that the KJV says that, is for you to say that God the Father & the Son is our blessed hope we are looking for in appearing with Jesus Christ when only Jesus Christ is prophesied to be appearing. So that means in context of the message, the use of the Great God is to Jesus Christ.
The Holy Spirit Himself testifies that we are now saved and children of God!
Hark
Well-Known Member
Indirectly as by speaking what He hears; Note how itself is used. The Holy Spirit is a Witness or a Messenger from Another as the Holy Spirit agrees with that testimony from Another as the Spirit of Christ so are the words from Christ.
Go to Jesus Christ from now on before posting.
Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
It is obvious that mortal men are confused, for whatever reason, about what the original message from God was. However God knows what He said.
None of these issues prevents God from saving His elect to be with Him for eternity. God is sovereign!
Right, I have it know. The fact the KJV contains errors does not matter, because God is sovereign and will compel His Elect to salvation. This is the sort of tommy-rot up with I must put...
Nevermind all the warnings in scripture about false doctrine and false teachers, because according to the dual pontificaters of Calvinism and KJV Onlyism, any message no matter how bogus will not result in hindering the ministry of Christ.
I kid you not...
Nevermind all the warnings in scripture about false doctrine and false teachers, because according to the dual pontificaters of Calvinism and KJV Onlyism, any message no matter how bogus will not result in hindering the ministry of Christ.
I kid you not...
Hark
Well-Known Member
Although all Bibles can be used to preach the Good News for sinners to be saved by, I cannot say that all Bibles can be used to correct false teachings when I have found only the KJV can do that in the past.
Although new Bible versions are coming out that may be the same as the KJV as far as keeping the meat in His words without sowing doubts within that Bible version, I do not know, but regardless, I have been & shall continue to rely only on the KJV, knowing that it is Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd that helps me to understand & discern the meaning of His words.
That is true but a clarity is needed because many believers thinks those professing Him that gets left behind, were not saved because He denied ever knowing them, when in fact, they were saved but left behind as in excommunicated from attending the Marriage Supper in Heaven for being workers of iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23
There are more than one way to deny Him than just verbally in order to be denied by Him. Titus 1:15-16 testify about that those who profess to know Him & yet deny Him in works so a saved believer in heresy can deny Him by works without verbally denying Him.
Example would be believing the lie that they can receive the Holy Spirit again apart from salvation. Even if they acknowledge that He is in them, they do so in hypocrisy by seeking to receive Him again after a sign which is the same as committing spiritual adultery ( Matthew 12:39 ) as if they had not received Him at all.
Or they can be unwittingly answer an altar call which is the opposite of the gospel preached when that apostate altar call is "If you are not sure you are saved, make a commitment to follow Christ" as if anyone can gain assurance of salvation by keeping it. That is not the same as that gospel of all those who call upon the Lord shall be saved. That altar call denies the gospel.
It is no wonder why many believers quit following Jesus because it is too hard as they judged themselves as not sincere when they keep sinning that which they do not want to do when Jesus says if anyone would follow after Him, we are to deny ourselves as able to by our will or merit, pick up the cross daily in that it is not we who live but Christ in us so that when He says "Follow Me", He is saying trust Me to help you to follow Me. Trust Me to lead you & guide you in the way you ought to go.
So by resorting to the flesh as if we can finish it by the flesh by keeping that commitment or promise to follow Him, we are denying our faith of looking to Him to help us to follow Him when we are looking to ourselves in doing the best we can in following Him.
If anyone doubts Jesus did not ask His disciples to make an oath to follow Him, but to trust Him to do this see thread.
Discerning Matthew 5:33-37
Important to note that even if they stop believing in Him, He is faithful because He still abides in former believers even after denying Him verbally in 2 Timothy 2:11-13.
2 Timothy 2:11 It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.
So those who believe Matthew 7:21-23 is about those professing Him but let behind were not saved, they are wrong. Like Esau & the prodigal son, they missed out on the firstfruits of the resurrection, but they are still His as they will be resurrected after the great tribulation as vessels unto dishonor but still in His House. 2 Timothy 2:20 for why former believers are called to depart from iniquity & not just carnal believers in 2 Timothy 2:18-21
2 Timothy 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. 19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. 20 But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. 21 If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the master's use, and prepared unto every good work.
The AV makers admitted they were unsure about the correct translations of some animals & birds from the Hebrew. One well-known example is "re'em", which we still only know was some sorta large, fierce herbivore. And I don't consider their rendering of it as "unicorn" to be a goof, as those men didn't know unicorns don't really exist; after all, one is depicted on their king's coat-of-arms.(Same for cockatrices & satyrs.) No doctrine is affected by the names of birds or animals.
Modern Jews regard both cuckoos & seagulls as non-kosher.
He is a Himself, and he is the Person of the trinity indwelling the redeemed!
- Status